1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276 
OLD FAMILIAR PHRASES
Page 107
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
VETNAM, the wages freeze and other matters of national and international importance were given so much emphasis in the reports of the Trades Union Congress that it would have been easy to overlook discussions towards the end of the week on subjects of more direct concern to individual unions or groups of unions.
From this point of view it may be a mistake for the Congress to attempt year after year to cover the whole political and industrial field. Concentration on a smaller number of issues affecting union activities would give more opportunity for the interchange of opinions and advice and might even produce some new ideas in place of the well-worn slogans.
LITTLE TIME FOR DEBATE Perhaps because there was little time for debate last week the bread-and-butter resolutions when they came seemed remote from the man at the work bench or in the driving cab. Like the other members of Congress the transport unions were precluded on this occasion from talking about higher wages. There were other aspects of the conditions of transport workers which could have been given consideration in preference to the fear of redundancy which appears to be the standard and the sole reaction of the unions to any suggestion for increasing transport productivity.
The main resolution on transport, which was naturally agreed with no difficulty, called for "the extension of public ownership in road and rail freight and passenger services and docks through the setting up of publicly-owned transport authorities with powerful regional authorities appointed from people enthusiastic for the success of public enterprise, and providing for an extension of worker participation in the management of these industries".
The form of wording may have been chosen to make it possible for Mr. Frank Cousins, general secretary, Transport and General Workers' Union, to propose the resolution, and for Mr. Sydney Greene, general secretary, National Union of Railwaymen, to second it. Any hope that the discussion would show up differences of opinion among the transport unions was thus disappointed. The speakers were enabled to deal merely with general issues within the framework of a cluster of phrases which had done duty over and over again at past congresses and would no doubt be pressed into further service for many years to come.
Naturally the latest White Paper on transport policy was the starting point for the discussion. It was given a half-hearted welcome, much less warm than the tributes paid to Mrs. Barbara Castle. The Minister of Transport clearly gave the impression, said Mr. Cousins, that she understood the problems confronting her. For the first time, said Mr. Greene, it was possible to congratulate someone for getting a move on in regard to transport. Mr. Alex Kitson, general secretary, Scottish Commercial Motormen's Union, spoke of the "breath of fresh air" which Mrs. Castle had brought to the Ministry.
Mr. W. H. Johnson, Transport Salaried Staffs Association, went further: "We have a Minister now who really believes in nationalization," he said, "and is willing to work with us towards that end." Whether or not this correctly interprets the mind of Mrs. Castle, doubts were expressed on the extent to which the White Paper matches the full-blown Socialist principles. Mr. Cousins, while agreeing that the document provided a basis for future progress, did not believe that as it stood it was an answer to all the problems. Mr. Greene also had reservations particularly about the proposed national freight organization. The prospect that it might compete with the railways for traffic seemed to horrify him.
CAUTIOUS APPROACH IN WHITE PAPER Presumably the unions preferred their own resolution to the more cautious approach in the White Paper. Its emotive terms, if taken literally, can only spread despondency. "Extension of public ownership" is a euphemism for nationalization, which to say the least has not been notably successful in the field of transport. The appointment of people "enthusiastic for the success of public enterprise" can only mean a kind of political screening. This might well eliminate many of the people now running the transport industry with an efficiency in no way impaired by their private opinions—their right to hold which should be jealously protected by the trade unions of all organizations.
"Worker participation" is a fine-sounding slogan but requires more precise definition. The protracted liner train controversy migh seem to indicate that worker or union inter ference in what should be the job of manage ment can prevent new ideas from beini tested and good ideas from being developed Mr. Greene avoided this subject but Mr Cousins had a word of hope. "We have nov got a proposal that we can put in front of ou: members," he said, "which provides us witl guarantees that will enable us to go aheac with liner train plans. We think this will giv( us the big breakthrough in the preliminar: stages of a co-ordinated road-rail transport freight service."
A LITTLE ONE-SIDED Mr. Cousins was referring to the guaran tees recently negotiated with British Roac Services in return for the experimental us( of liner trains between London and Glasgow If this is what he means by "workel participation" it seems a little one-sided The reference to a "big breakthrough' is a surprising thing to say when it remembered that the unions alone of all the interests concerned, including the Minister of Transport as well as all the providers and users of transport, have been the obstacle in the way of implementing the liner train scheme.
The price of participation may also seem high. Apart from what could be expensive assurances against redundancy it is reported that BRS workers have been guaranteed nc loss of earnings even for highly-paid drivers who may be transferred to local work. Independent hauliers, even if they are to be allowed to use. liner trains in the new atmosphere of "worker participation,' can hardly expect less onerous terms than :hose negotiated with BRS.
If labour costs are thus inflated the liner train scheme may seem doomed to failure from the outset. That it will ever operate to the full extent is in any event still problematical. As far as independent hauliers are concerned the consent of the road transport workers, on whatever terms. is merely the first hurdle and not the big breakthrough. There still remain the railway unions. Road operators have nothing to offer them and they show no signs of being satisfied so far with the assurances from their own employer.